Who largely outsources with credit, but the point stands. I only brought it up initially since there's a chance the mods (including the man himself) could remove it.
Wtf? Even my descriptivist ass is telling whoever came up with that that they're wrong. A burrito is a calzone? An enchilada is sushi? Words mean what you mean when you say them, but they also need to have some structural stability. Out here calling sushi toast. Wtf.
When the true Cube Rule believers are rewarded with all manner of toast, sandwiches, tacos, sushi, quiches, calzones, salads, cakes, nachos, and muffins, you'll be sorry you plied your tasteless heresy this day, filthy food miscategorizer! I bet you call hot dogs "sandwiches" like a true troglodite!
A common misconception. You see, nachos are foods composed of a starch within a substrate of non-starch. What you're calling "open faced sandwiches" are a form of "toast" in which non-starch sits atop a layer of starch.
In my world, calling cereal a soup is like calling a grape an apple. Soup is not an encompassing category, soup is a genericized standalone object, along the lines of a platonic form. The same is true of a hot dog. When we reference a BLT as a sandwich, it is simply referencing the generic, rather than the specific, it's like referencing a tissue rather than a kleenex.
Within this framework, there are no real sandwiches. There is no real soup. That utensil you might eat it with? Not real either, champ.
Only some cereals are soups. Lucky charms in milk is a soup. Frosted Flakes in milk is not. A soup has to be a collection of different ingredients in a liquid medium.
The purpose of language is communication. If I were to say "I had soup for breakfast" when I really had cereal, it would probably communicate the wrong idea. Cereal is not soup, and it is not necessary to produce a robust, cereal-excluding definition of soup to defend this point.